VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL) Vol.5 Issue 3 An International Peer Reviewed Journal 2018 http://www.joell.in

RESEARCH ARTICLE

GIRISH KARNAD’S YAYATIUNDER THE PARADIGM OF NORTHROP FRYE’S “THEORY OF SYMBOLS” Neha Singh Ramveer (Research Scholar, Department of English Studies, Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed University), Dayalbagh, Agra.)

ABSTRACT Literary Criticism is a disinterested application of the free play of mind on its subject to understand and interpret. Northrop Frye (1912- 1991), has been one of the most influential and schematic thinkers and critics of the twentieth century. Northrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism (1957) gained

worldwide popularity. In the third essay, “Theory of Symbols”, Northrop Frye endeavours to systematize literary symbolism.Frye talks about the sequence of contexts which constitute ‘phases’ and forms the general idea of the “Theory of Symbols”. ‘Phases’ are meant to analyze the symbolic meaning within which literature can be interpreted.The play is deeply rooted in the mythological framework, depicting the story of King Yayati and Devayani, the daughter of Daitya Guru Shukracharya.Through the mythic character of King Yayati, rituals like Pratimola and also the exchange of ages between father and son, Girish Karnad takes the readers to the rich heritage of India. Myths are used as archetypes in this play. Through the epitome of king Yayati, Karnad shows the temperament of a modern man, his craze towards materialism.

Keywords: Theory of Symbols, Mythical phase, Archetypes, Existentialism.

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article Copyright © 2018 VEDA Publications Author(s) agree that this article remains permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License .

72 Neha Singh Ramveer

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL) Vol.5 Issue 3 An International Peer Reviewed Journal 2018 http://www.joell.in

INTRODUCTION In the present work, an attempt has been Literary Criticism is a disinterested made to analyze Girish Karnad’s play Yayati under application of the free play of mind on its subject to the paradigm of Northrop Frye’s Mythical phase understand and interpret. Intellectual freedom is where a symbol performs the function of an necessary for critical understanding and analysis. In archetype. Archetype, Frye states, is “a symbol which the twenty first century many holistic and healthy connects one poem with another and thereby helps platforms are erected for scholarly debates, us to unify and integrate our literary experience” discussions and healthy questioning. Thus, today, (Anatomy 99). Archetype has been used as a literary criticism has an altogether a new face. Along communicable symbol in the literary works and with the formulation of theories, their application is through the usage of it Frye’s focus is towards the also encouraged. unification and integration of literary experiences. Northrop Frye (1912- 1991), has been one of According to Frye, a poem is an imitation of another the most influential and schematic thinkers and poem. There is nothing new in the poem related to critics of the twentieth century. He became popular idea and theme. The newness in the poem comes for his deep understanding of literature, when it is treated in different ways by different morphological and Biblical narrative, symbol, ritual, writers. and archetypal literary criticism. Three of his works While discussing the concepts of myth, namely Fearful Symmetry (1949), Anatomy of dream and ritual, Frye shows their relationship with Criticism (1957), and Fables of Identity (1963) gained one other. Frye defines the mythic aspect as, “the prominence in the field of Archetypal Criticism. union of ritual and dream in a form of verbal NORTHROP FRYE’S “THEORY OF SYMBOLS” communication is myth” (Anatomy 106). ‘Ritual’ (MYTHICAL PHASE) writes Frye, “is pre-logical” and “pre-verbal” Northrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism (1957) (Anatomy 106). ‘Dream’ writes Frye is related to gained worldwide popularity. In the third essay, dreamer’s own life. But the element of myth is “Theory of Symbols”, Northrop Frye endeavours to present in all dreams and in all rituals which provides systematize literary symbolism. For instance, the meaning to both and the power of independent writers in different ages have drawn symbols from communication. Narrative of literature constitutes different sources. Frye adopts the term ‘polysemous’ two basic patterns cyclical and dialectical. Ritual from Dante which means multiple meanings. basically involves in the cyclical process of nature like Northrop Frye provides a very broad definition of a the usage of seasons, the recurring cycles of human symbol. For him, a symbol is “any unit of any literary life etc. The dialectical on the other hand, reinforces structure that can be isolated for critical attention” from dream wherein the constant conflict between (Anatomy 71). Frye talks about the sequence of desire and reality can be seen like love and hate, contexts which constitute ‘phases’ and forms the liberty and capture etc. This pattern can be found in general idea of the “Theory of Symbols”. ‘Phases’ are poetry when it is expressed hypothetically. meant to analyze the symbolic meaning within which GIRISH KARNAD’S YAYATI literature can be interpreted. In the present work, an The plays of Girish Karnad are deeply attempt has been made to analyze Girish Karnad’s engaged with our cultural past. It has been rightly play Yayati under the paradigm of Northrop Frye’s said by Vanashree Tripathi that “deep engagement Mythical phase where a symbol performs the with his cultural moves has brought into being in function of an archetype. terms of his drama a new artistic sensibility that A symbol, according to Frye, performs five types of speaks of our culture confidently and advances an functions: indigenous concept of modernity” (8). Karnad plays  Literal/Descriptive (Motifs and Signs) talk about the past which is forgotten. More than a  Formal (Image) playwright he is a famous thinker, artist, actor, poet  Mythical (Archetype) and a producer. Through his plays he tried to awaken the lost and the past culture of India. The rich wealth  Anagogic (Monad)

73 Neha Singh Ramveer

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL) Vol.5 Issue 3 An International Peer Reviewed Journal 2018 http://www.joell.in of folklores told in the childhood took Karnad into the Devayani complained to her father about world where animals spoke like humans and gods Sharmistha. Sukracharya told the King that if his changed their forms. daughter was not satisfied then he would leave the Numerous plays like Tuglaq, Yayati, Kingdom. Then, Devayani, in order to take her Hayavadana, Tale- Danada, Naga- Mandala, The Fire revenge from Sharmistha, set a condition that she and the Rain, Bali and Hittima- Hunja encompasses had to be her dasi (“handmaid”) forever. Sharmistha histories, myth, folklores which are rejuvenated and agreed to become the handmaid of Devayani to save expanded into the poetics of contemporary drama. her father’s honour. Later on, Devayani married to Vanashree Tripathi states, “extending into the twenty King Yayati as Sukracharya agreed to make an first century, the composite art of Indian drama as exception to the Pratimola rule and Sharmistha as Karnad visualizes world serve significant functions the punishment went along with Devayani. providing for instructions, entertainment, In the meanwhile, Sharmistha was attracted enlightenment, happiness, peace and moral towards King Yayati. They married secretively. When elevation” (15). Similar to Northrop Frye, Karnad Devayani discovered the secret, she became very doesnot see history as a linear progression of events furious and went to her father. A furious instead “a process by which past is constructed and Shukracharya cursed King Yayati with old age. Yayati invented by the subjective self- shaped by the believed in enjoying the pleasures of life and this cultural institutions_ family, religion, state” (Tripathi curse had left him distraught. He later appealed 25). Shukracharya to reduce the severity of his curse. YAYATI UNDER THE PARADIGM OF NORTHROP Shukracharya told him that if anybody would be FRYE’S ‘MYTHICAL PHASE’ ready to exchange his old age then he could get his If we move from Northrop Frye’s notion of youth back as before. Yayati approached each of his the relation between literature and myths which has sons but no one agreed except Puru. He transferred its roots to the Indian literature, we find that myths his old age to Puru. Puru became an old man and have been given importance in the Indian Literature Yayati regained his youth. And at the end, Chitralekha from time immemorial. It derives its material from wife of Puru committed suicide. Through this action, the epics like the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Yayati realized his mistake and returned the youth to Vedas, the Upanishads etc. Girish Karnad’s play Puru. Yayati is a story taken from an episode of ‘Adiparva’ CONCLUSION from The Mahabharata. The play is deeply rooted in The play can be seen under the limelight of the mythological framework, depicting the story of Mythic phase of Northrop Frye’s “Theory of King Yayati and Devayani, the daughter of Daitya Symbols”. Through the mythic character of King Guru Shukracharya. Girish Karnad uses the myth of Yayati, rituals like Pratimola and also the exchange of King Yayati to depict the existential situation of a ages between father and son, Girish Karnad takes the modern man and his invincible desire for sensual and readers to the rich heritage of India. Myths are used sexual pleasures. as archetypes in this play. Through the epitome of The play began with King Yayati and his wife king Yayati he shows the temperament of a modern Devayani. Before her marriage, Devayani was man, his craze towards materialism. The motif of insulted by Sharmistha, daughter of the King of using myth in the plays is to depict the condition of asuras, Visvaparva. Sharmistha had thrown Devayani man and to link present with the eternal and the into a waterless well. Yayati who was a trespasser contemporary with the archetypal. Karnad’s usage of had rescued Devayani. She was proposed by King past histories and myths to reflect the present Yayati for marriage. Devyani refused and stated that scenario is unremarkable. Karnad technically turned the Pratiloma rule (which forbade a Kshahtriya to the old mythsand stories into plays providing a new marry a Brahmin girl) as the major obstacle in their dimension to it. Social Archetype of moral guidance marriage. has been used in the play. Through the usage of myth

74 Neha Singh Ramveer

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL) Vol.5 Issue 3 An International Peer Reviewed Journal 2018 http://www.joell.in he tries to bring harmony to the society and the concept of existentialism can be seen. WORKS CITIED [1]. Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton UP, 1957. [2]. Tripathi, Vanashree. Three Plays of Girish Karnad: A Study in Poetics and Culture, Hayavadana, Tale- Danda, The Fire and the Rain. New Delhi, 2004.

75 Neha Singh Ramveer